In the rolling farmlands of central Iowa, where community trust is the glue holding small towns together, a routine financial review has exposed a web of overpayments and oversight lapses that cost taxpayers nearly $90,000. On Thursday, November 6, Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand released a scathing special investigation into the City of Baxter, revealing improper disbursements tied to three former officials—including William Daggett, who resigned that same morning as Mitchellville’s police chief. What began as whispers of padded timesheets in a town of just 1,000 residents has rippled outward, forcing a leadership vacuum in neighboring Mitchellville and igniting debates on accountability in rural governance.
Daggett’s swift exit—submitted hours after the report dropped—underscores the fragility of public service in Iowa’s heartland. Hired by Mitchellville in March 2024 after leaving Baxter amid internal scrutiny, the 20-year law enforcement veteran now faces not just reputational ruin but potential criminal probes. As Jasper County authorities and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office review the findings, this scandal serves as a cautionary tale: In places where officials wear multiple hats, the line between diligence and deceit can blur with devastating consequences.
The Unraveling in Baxter: A New Council’s Wake-Up Call
It was a crisp January morning in 2024 when Baxter’s freshly elected city council, buoyed by a wave of local change, cracked open the ledgers of their modest municipal operation. The town, nestled in Jasper County with its single stoplight and volunteer fire department, had long operated on faith in its core team: Police Chief William Daggett, who juggled patrols with a side gig in Van Meter; City Clerk Katie Wilson, the gatekeeper of the books; and EMS Coordinator Randi Gliem, coordinating life-saving responses. But as the new officials pored over payroll stubs and credit card statements, the numbers didn’t add up—timesheets bloated with hours unverified by dispatch logs, vacation payouts exceeding earned balances, and Visa charges for items that vanished from city inventories.
By early February, an internal probe had escalated into a full-blown crisis. Gliem resigned on the 5th, citing personal reasons but skipping a pivotal review meeting. Ten days later, Wilson and Daggett followed, their departures leaving Baxter’s public safety apparatus in disarray. The council, acting on mounting suspicions, fired off a “qualifying request” to Sand’s office—a taxpayer-funded mechanism designed to unearth fiscal foul play. What they uncovered wasn’t just sloppy bookkeeping; it was a pattern of excess that drained public coffers, from overlapping shifts that let Daggett collect dual paychecks to undocumented swipes at big-box stores. As one anonymous council member told local reporters, “We trusted them to protect us, not pick our pockets.”
Daggett’s Quick Pivot: Hope in Mitchellville Turns Sour
Undeterred by the Baxter fallout, Daggett polished his resume and landed the chief’s role in Mitchellville by March 4—a town of 2,300 with ambitions to bolster its force amid growing suburban sprawl from Des Moines. Elected officials there saw a seasoned operator: Daggett’s bio touted decades on the beat, from traffic stops to crisis negotiations. Yet red flags lingered. Mitchellville’s human resources team, spotting echoes of Baxter’s payroll puzzles in Daggett’s timesheets, quietly requested their own state audit in the spring. “We hire for integrity,” Mayor Scott Meeker said in a statement Friday, “and when questions arise, we act decisively.”
The move proved prescient. As Sand’s team dug into Baxter’s records—cross-referencing timesheets against Jasper County Sheriff’s call-in logs and employment overlaps—the discrepancies piled up. Daggett’s claimed full shifts often coincided with zero check-ins, suggesting ghost hours billed while he worked elsewhere. By summer, whispers in Mitchellville’s city hall grew louder, with staffers trading notes on unapproved comp time accruals. The audit’s release on Thursday morning hit like a siren: Daggett’s resignation letter arrived before noon, accepted provisionally by Meeker pending a council vote next week. In its wake, the department’s 12 officers are left leaderless, with a veteran sergeant stepping in as interim chief.
Audit Deep Dive: The Numbers That Don’t Lie
Sand’s 40-page report, spanning July 2021 to February 2024, paints a damning portrait of lax controls in Baxter’s $1.2 million annual budget. At the epicenter: $51,275.62 in overpayments to Daggett alone, broken down into excess wages ($41,944.77 from 36 unverified pay periods), comp time payouts ($6,667.33 for 161 ineligible hours), and duplicate billing ($2,663.52 for 65 hours claimed across two full-time jobs). Wilson netted $3,509.55 in improper comp time, inflated by mathematical errors and leave-period earnings, while Gliem pocketed $1,461.09 via overtime misclassifications and phantom EMS shifts. Add $1,776.99 in volunteer payroll irregularities, and payroll alone siphoned $58,023 from the till.
Beyond wages, the probe flagged $11,294.57 in unsupported expenditures—credit card splurges at Amazon and Target without receipts, totaling $5,932.32, plus vendor checks for groceries and gear that never reached city shelves. Another $15,035.90 went to questionable vendors, including $4,050 overpaid to a uncertified water operator. Late fees tacked on $129.81, and utility bungles left $3,814.88 uncollected in penalties and deposits. “These weren’t isolated slips,” Sand said at a Des Moines presser. “They point to systemic failures—no reviews, no segregation of duties, just trust without verification.” The auditor referred the file to prosecutors, hinting at theft or forgery charges under Iowa Code.
Legal Implications for the Individuals Involved
By Billy D. Frazier IV – Senior Judicial Legal Analyst (Iowa / National)
Auditor’s Findings and Context (Opinion): The Baxter audit exposes a breach of fiduciary duty—officials mishandled public funds by failing to verify hours and purchases. Under Iowa Code § 721.2(5), that could amount to “Misconduct in Office.” It shows how trust alone cannot replace documented accountability in small-town government. Layman’s terms: They were supposed to take care of taxpayers’ money, but they didn’t double-check what was being spent. That’s not just sloppy—it could be a crime when public cash is handled carelessly.
The Numbers That Don’t Lie (Opinion): With $51,275.62 in overpayments to one officer, the losses exceed felony thresholds under Iowa theft statutes if intent is proven. Citizens are owed restitution and deterrence; repayment alone cannot close the case. Layman’s terms: That’s a lot of money—enough to count as a felony if he meant to do it. Paying it back isn’t the same as facing justice; taxpayers deserve both accountability and prevention.
Fallout and Voices: Resignation, Reckoning, and Repercussions
The shockwaves reached Mitchellville’s council chambers by evening, where members huddled to appoint an interim and launch a national search for Daggett’s replacement. “This is a blow, but we’re committed to transparency,” Meeker told KCCI, emphasizing the city’s parallel audit request as proactive governance. Daggett, reached briefly outside his home, declined comment, but sources close to him say he’s cooperating fully and disputes the audit’s characterizations as “overreach on incomplete logs.”
Sand, a Democrat wrapping up his term amid re-election buzz, used the podium to rally local watchdogs. “Audits like this happen because someone speaks up,” he urged, noting the report’s reliance on the council’s tip. “Public trust is the real currency here—lose it, and reputations follow.” Indeed, the scandal has locals buzzing: Baxter’s Facebook groups brim with calls for repayment plans, while Mitchellville residents petition for ethics training. No charges have landed yet, but the shadow looms large over the ex-officials’ futures.
Lessons for Iowa’s Heartland: Beyond Baxter’s Borders
This isn’t Baxter’s anomaly; it’s a symptom of strains in Iowa’s 900-plus municipalities, where budgets scrape by on property taxes and part-time clerks double as bookkeepers. The report lambasts absent safeguards—no monthly bank reviews, no council sign-offs on payroll—echoing audits in Eldora and Correctionville that flushed out similar grift. Statewide, Sand’s office fields 50 such requests yearly, up 20% since 2020, as post-pandemic hiring booms expose weak spots.
Yet hope flickers in reform pushes: Bills in the Iowa Legislature aim to mandate annual internal audits for towns under 5,000 residents, with whistleblower bounties for tips leading to recoveries. “It’s about empowering the everyday Iowan,” says Sen. Rob Hogg, a Cedar Rapids Democrat sponsoring one measure. For now, Baxter’s council is overhauling policies—segregating duties, digitizing receipts—while Mitchellville eyes body cams for fiscal accountability, a cheeky nod to policing its own books.
Broader Judicial and National Perspectives
By Billy D. Frazier IV – Senior Judicial Legal Analyst (Iowa / National)
Daggett’s Resignation and Broader Impact (Opinion): Resigning the same day the audit dropped looks like consciousness of guilt—a signal he knew trouble was coming. Mitchellville may face exposure for negligent hiring if it ignored Baxter’s red flags, since public employers must vet applicants who handle taxpayer funds. Layman’s terms: Quitting right after the report makes it look like he knew he’d been caught. The next town that hired him might get in trouble too for not checking his background first.
Audit Corroboration and Resignation (Opinion): Cross-checking Baxter payrolls with Sheriff dispatch logs proved dual-employment conflicts and potential conversion of public funds. Daggett’s resignation before termination could be viewed as an attempt to preserve benefits or limit accountability. Layman’s terms: The audit showed he was clocked in two places at once—getting double-paid. Stepping down early might help him keep his pension, but it doesn’t erase what happened.
Outlook: Rebuilding Trust, One Ledger at a Time
As November’s chill settles over Iowa’s prairies, Baxter and Mitchellville stand at a crossroads. The cities could recoup some losses—Daggett already repaid $123.44 for minor items—but full restitution hinges on prosecutors’ grit. For Daggett, a return to private security seems likely; for Wilson and Gliem, quieter paths await. Sand’s report ends with a clarion call: “Fiduciary duty isn’t optional—it’s the oath of office.”
In the end, this saga reminds us that in America’s small towns, the badge of public service weighs heaviest when balanced against the ledger. As Baxter’s new clerk logs her first unblemished payroll, and Mitchellville’s interim chief radios in for duty, one truth endures: Accountability isn’t just good policy—it’s the patrol car keeping watch over us all.
*Disclaimer: The views expressed by Billy D. Frazier IV, Senior Judicial Legal Analyst (Pro Se), are for educational and public advocacy purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or attorney services. Mr. Frazier is not a licensed attorney and acts solely as a pro se litigant and public legal educator.*
A Timeline of Eviction, Federal Escalation, and Municipal Activity
Pre-Eviction Litigation Context (December 2025)
By late 2025, plaintiff Billy Dwayne Frazier IV was already engaged in active litigation against landlords and the City of Cedar Rapids, alleging housing retaliation, discrimination, and habitability violations. Court filings from December 2025 reflect an adversarial posture, including a rebuttal challenging the City’s characterization of its actions as routine and disputing federal regulatory classifications related to water infrastructure.
“Once litigation is pending, best practices — and basic fairness — require written communication, coordination through counsel, and avoidance of unannounced physical presence at a litigant’s home.” — Court filing, December 2025
The December filing establishes that the City was already on notice that the plaintiffs were active litigants asserting retaliation and discrimination claims, and that the City itself was a named defendant. This context predates all events that followed.
Eviction and Immediate Federal Escalation (January 2, 2026)
Less than three weeks later, on January 2, 2026, the plaintiffs were evicted from the Oakland Road NE properties at issue. The eviction occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. That same day, a Notice of Subsequent Material Events was filed with the court, documenting the displacement and advising that federal agencies had already become involved.
“I was evicted at 11:00 a.m. I was gone before they came. Forty-five minutes later, HUD called me.” — Will Frazier
According to the filing, within roughly 45 minutes of the eviction, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contacted the plaintiff, acknowledged prior non-response to complaints, and confirmed that the matter had been escalated through the HUD Office of Inspector General before being referred for fair-housing review. The notice was submitted for record-preservation purposes and did not seek immediate relief.
“They apologized for not returning my calls — months of calls — and told me my file had already gone through HUD OIG in Washington.” — Will Frazier
Post-Eviction Municipal Excavation
In the weeks that followed, municipal excavation and construction activity occurred at and around the same Oakland Road properties. Photographic exhibits filed with the court depict trenching, ground disturbance, and utility-related work directly adjacent to the residences.
“They started excavating the street in front of the properties named in the lawsuit.” — Will Frazier
A supporting affidavit explains that the documentation was submitted after observing the activity without prior notice, out of concern that physical evidence relevant to the litigation — such as service lines or soil conditions — could be altered or rendered unavailable.
“I had not received prior notice that excavation or replacement work would be conducted, nor that potentially relevant physical evidence would be altered.” — Sworn affidavit, January 2026
City of Cedar Rapids Public Advisory and Response
Shortly thereafter, the City of Cedar Rapids issued a public Precautionary Boil Advisory affecting the same block of Oakland Road NE, citing a ruptured water main and loss of pressure that created potential for contamination. Screenshots of the City’s official statements and public responses were preserved and filed in the court record.
“A rupture in a water main caused a loss of pressure, creating potential for bacterial contamination.” — City of Cedar Rapids public advisory
A sworn affidavit authenticated the advisory as a true and accurate copy of the City’s public notice, expressly stating that it was submitted for documentation purposes only and without asserting causation or liability.
“This exhibit is submitted for the limited purpose of documenting the City’s public advisory, including timing and scope, without asserting fault or intent.” — Sworn affidavit, January 2026
Historical Water Incidents and Habitability Context
Court filings also include earlier documentation of water-related incidents in the area.
Supplemental materials filed prior to the eviction document pre-existing water infrastructure concerns and recurring conditions affecting the neighborhood.
Video exhibits filed in November 2025 show street-level water intrusion near residential properties, providing visual confirmation of those conditions.
“This didn’t start in January. The water issues were already there.” — Will Frazier
These materials predate the eviction and are included as contextual evidence rather than causal proof.
Why the Timeline Matters
Taken together, the filings establish a clear chronology: active litigation and regulatory disputes preceded the eviction; the eviction was followed almost immediately by federal agency escalation; and municipal infrastructure activity and public advisories occurred soon after, prompting multiple evidence-preservation submissions.
“I’m not using the courts as a microphone. I’m using them to preserve the record.” — Will Frazier
Each filing was entered with limited-purpose language, emphasizing documentation, notice, and preservation rather than conclusions. This record now forms the factual basis for ongoing housing, water, and civil-rights proceedings under review in both state and federal forums.
The latest filing in Frazier v. Jones does not arise from speculation or hindsight. It arises from a federally mandated change that took effect at the end of 2024.
Under updated EPA Lead and Copper Rule requirements, municipalities were required to complete and publicly maintain more accurate service line inventories, including how “unknown” lines are classified for replacement planning. Once those standards were applied, Cedar Rapids’ long-standing public representations about its water system began to shift — quickly and materially.
“This isn’t speculation. Almost all of the evidence I’m using comes straight from their own documents — the City, housing authorities, state agencies, and federal law. I’m not creating it. I’m producing it.” — Will Frazier
How the RICO Claim Reached the Water Issue
Civil RICO is not meant to capture isolated errors. It addresses patterns of conduct, particularly where institutions respond defensively once compliance obligations tighten.
In recent federal filings, Frazier notified the court that newly discovered evidence related to water infrastructure and public safety — evidence required to exist under updated federal rules — had been transmitted prior to judgment but not considered. He further alleges that retaliatory actions escalated after he began requesting records tied to that required data.
RICO does not require proof of intent at the outset. It requires showing repeated conduct, notice, contradiction, and harm tied to coordinated behavior. That is why water infrastructure data became relevant to the case — not as a separate environmental lawsuit, but as context for how systems respond when compliance becomes unavoidable.
“This isn’t about one mistake. It’s about how institutions respond once compliance becomes unavoidable.” — Will Frazier
Why the “17 Percent” Figure Changed
Cedar Rapids Water Service Line Map (Current)
For years, Cedar Rapids publicly referenced an estimate of roughly 17 percent lead-related service lines. That figure existed in a regulatory environment where “unknown” classifications were common and not always treated as presumptive lead for planning purposes.
That changed.
Under EPA Lead and Copper Rule revisions finalized and enforced by late 2024, municipalities are now required to treat unknown service lines far more conservatively — effectively as presumptive lead until proven otherwise. This affects planning, disclosure, and replacement prioritization.
Once those standards are applied:
Large “unknown” areas no longer remain neutral
Many lines shift into galvanized requiring replacement or presumptive lead
Exposure appears more concentrated in older housing stock
“Seventeen percent was never the ceiling. Once the EPA required cities to apply the law correctly, the numbers changed.” — Will Frazier
This is not a retroactive accusation. It is the consequence of updated federal compliance requirements.
Cedar Rapids Map (Applying EPA Guidelines for Unknown Pipes)
What Happened After the Records Request
After formally requesting records explaining how Cedar Rapids was classifying service lines under the updated federal standards, Frazier did not receive documents.
Instead, the City placed a yellow door tag — not on his door, but on his neighbor’s.
The notice stated that the Water Department needed to repair or inspect the water meter. According to Frazier, the City later acknowledged the visit was connected to his records request.
“I asked for paperwork. I didn’t ask them to show up at someone’s house. And I didn’t ask them to inspect a water meter — because a water meter isn’t a service line.” — Will Frazier
A water meter is municipal equipment used for billing and readings. It is not a lead pipe and not a galvanized service line. Frazier argues that labeling the visit as a meter repair contradicts the stated purpose of verifying line classifications.
More significantly, the notice was left only on the door of a non-litigant neighbor, not the litigant who made the request. In active litigation — particularly where retaliation has already been alleged — selective contact with a vulnerable third party raises serious concerns.
“You don’t contact the weaker party next door and pretend it’s routine. That’s intimidation — and the paper trail proves it.” — Will Frazier
At this stage, Frazier is not required to prove motive. He is required to show notice, contradiction, and pattern — which he argues the documentation now reflects.
Why the Water Issue Fits the RICO Pattern
The door-tag incident does not stand alone. Frazier points to a consistent pattern that emerges once federal compliance tightened:
Risk classifications change only after scrutiny
Requests for records trigger physical actions instead of disclosures
Administrative framing is used to minimize urgency
Corrections occur under pressure, not proactively
In civil RICO analysis, pattern matters more than any single act. The same institutional behavior alleged in housing enforcement and court proceedings appears again in the City’s response to newly required water data.
What Is at Stake Now
Because the updated inventory requirements only took effect recently, the stakes are forward-looking.
Until service lines are accurately classified and replaced under current federal standards, entire categories of projects remain exposed:
• Downtown and riverfront redevelopment • Public-private construction initiatives • Casino-adjacent and infrastructure-heavy developments • Federal and state funding tied to environmental compliance
EPA funding, environmental justice reviews, and financing disclosures all rely on accurate, current inventories — not outdated classifications.
What Comes Next
Frazier has now formally notified federal courts and agencies that his RICO case has expanded to include newly required water infrastructure data, supported by municipal records and updated federal law.
The question is no longer whether Cedar Rapids has lead or galvanized service lines — that is a known issue nationwide. The question is how institutions responded once federal rules required greater accuracy, and whether actions taken after that point crossed into retaliation or obstruction.
On My Disassociation from the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and the Launch of Stone Soup for Justice
After an extensive period of prayer, reflection, and careful consideration, I must make a difficult and deeply serious announcement.
With a heavy heart, I am formally and fully ending my association—of any capacity—with the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and its founder, Francesca Amato.
I do not make this decision lightly. I have worked too hard, for too long, to elevate the voices of my family, Iowa families, and families across this country; to build constructive relationships with lawmakers; and to earn trust through careful, honest advocacy. I cannot allow my name, reputation, or work to be tied to conduct and representations that I believe are dishonest, exploitative, and fundamentally misaligned with the kind of reform our children deserve.
Ethical and Policy Concerns
My decision is rooted in both policy and ethics.
I have personally witnessed parents paying thousands of dollars for “services” that delivered little meaningful support or tangible outcomes. I have also observed what I consider to be cult-like dynamics within the organization—expectations of unquestioning loyalty to leadership, pressure to accept narratives that conflicted with facts, and hostility toward legitimate professional accountability.
In my view, this environment harms vulnerable families who are seeking help, not control.
Misrepresentation to Lawmakers
I am especially troubled by a pattern of mistruths and overstatements directed at legislators and the public.
I was informed that Senator Chuck Grassley’s office and other U.S. Senate offices “100% stand behind” the FJAA bill. I know firsthand that this is not accurate. I have worked directly with Senator Grassley’s staff and other congressional offices and have earned their respect by being precise, honest, and careful in what I represent.
While Senator Grassley stands firmly for accountability and transparency—and remains fully supportive of his constituents—his office does not support the FJAA bill. He has expressed concern that it blurs state and federal authority and creates confusion rather than clarity.
I cannot and will not attach my name to claims of congressional support that I know are untrue, nor to a 94-page bill that, in my judgment, overreaches, confuses jurisdictional boundaries, and risks undermining broader reform efforts.
Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct
I have observed a troubling pattern of unprofessional and retaliatory behavior from Francesca Amato that I find incompatible with serious policy work.
This has included:
Speaking negatively about advocates behind their backs while presenting warmth to their faces
Creating unnecessary conflict between advocacy groups
Encouraging supporters to attack other advocates in her defense
Demanding public gratitude or deference
Responding to substantive policy concerns with personal attacks
When I raised legitimate concerns about state–federal boundaries and Title IV-E compliance, the response was not honest policy discussion but attacks on my character.
Most concerning, my private medical information and lawful medical treatment were weaponized in an attempt to discredit me. Given that Francesca Amato presents herself as an ADA advocate, I view this as a serious violation of medical privacy and disability rights.
I have also observed a broader lack of personal responsibility in routine matters, which further eroded my trust. These are not the hallmarks of accountable leadership.
Implausible Claims and False Hope
I was repeatedly presented with grandiose and implausible claims, including assertions of imminent executive orders, high-level meetings, promises to personally take me to meet President Trump because he was “about to sign” the FJAA, and statements that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was reviewing the bill.
When such claims are made without evidence—and used to build loyalty, financial commitment, or hope from traumatized families—that crosses a line.
Survivors of system harm deserve transparency, realism, and integrity. Not fantasies.
For all of these reasons, I am formally and completely disassociating myself from:
The Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA)
Its current bill
Any claim that I support or endorse Francesca Amato’s strategies, representations, or leadership
Moving Forward: Stone Soup for Justice
I remain deeply committed to child welfare reform, sibling preservation, and enforcement of federal law—particularly Title IV-E—in a way that is honest, targeted, and workable.
Going forward, I will be focusing my efforts on Stone Soup for Justice, a new collaborative team and legislative vehicle grounded in truth, accountability, and cooperation. Stone Soup for Justice reflects our belief that real reform is built collectively—through transparency, shared responsibility, and rigorous policy work—not through control or misinformation.
I am honored to move forward with the advisement and support of Kathleen Arthur, a long-respected and credible voice in Congress on child welfare and federal funding. Together with Stone Soup for Justice, we are developing legislation tightly focused on Title IV-E requirements and enforcement.
Our work will center on:
Misuse of Title IV-E funds
Federal compliance standards states must meet to receive and retain funding
Wrongful removals and wrongful terminations of parental rights
Removals and terminations that resulted in injury or death
Family-court-forced separations
Failures to prioritize kinship placement and sibling preservation
Violations of reasonable-efforts requirements
Systemic practices that bypass federally mandated protections for parents and children
At the end of the day, my goal is to deliver the results and meaningful change families deserve—especially those who placed their trust elsewhere—through honest advocacy, precise lawmaking, and steadfast accountability.
My loyalty is, and always will be, to the children and families of Iowa and to families across this country seeking real, sustainable change.
I will not compromise that mission to remain aligned with conduct I cannot defend.
— Kristin Mitchell
Supporting Statements
Kathleen Arthur (Left)
“Children must come first. I have been working on fixing the Families First Act since it was passed. It simply did not have enough protections or oversight. It did not solve the funding problems. Change is slow; however, we are on the edge of making major change in child welfare. This team has clicked with members of Congress better than any I have ever seen. Congress is ready. The ground is fertile. The time to plant the seeds is now.”
Tasha Ulshafer (Left)
“I’m excited to start this new journey with the amazing new group I’m with. Moving forward with people who stand for truth and real action feels empowering. I was misled before by Francesca Amato, but that chapter is closed.”
Melissa Owens (Left)
“I am withdrawing my support and any association with the Family Justice and Accountability Act 2025 and its organizer after discovering serious constitutional issues with the bill and witnessing harmful, cult-like organizational behavior. My commitment to families navigating the family court and CPS systems remains unchanged. I will now be working with a new group, including Kristin Mitchell, Kathleen Arthur, and others at Stone Soup for Justice, to develop federal legislation that truly protects children and keeps them in loving homes. While this change may come as a surprise to many people I deeply care about, this new path reflects my dedication to finding real, ethical, and effective solutions for those who are suffering and seeking true resolution.”
